I’ve had these & similar thoughts often about the temple. I’m glad to see I’m in good company.
:)

v.11
Is Nephi refering to the Son of God or to the Holy Ghost when he states “…it was the Spirit of the Lord…”?

v12.
Why is it noted that this being disappeared (a magician act)?

v13.
The Vision starts back up and he(Nephi)is taken to Nazareth and beholds “…a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.”

v14.
The vision is interupted by an angel who then guides Nephi through the rest of vision.

a few thoughts/questions:

-If the “Spirit of the Lord” in v.11 refers to the Holy Ghost, why the interuption (v.12) to the Vision and the dissappearance of said being?

-Is not the Holy Ghost capable of residing with/in multiple people at different locations all at the same time? [Could not have the Holy Ghost simultaneously resided with Nephi and the Virgin?]

-If the “Spirit of the Lord” in v.11 was indeed the Son of God, why the interuption (v.12) to the Vision and His dissappearance?

-Why was the Son of God unable to show Nephi in the Vision His(Christ) mortal life/ministry v.14, 16-36?

-What does this tell us about the nature of visions?…about the nature of God?

-”Is there a difference between a dream and a vision? What might qualify a dream as a vision?” Feast Wiki 1 NE 8:2

thank you for allowing me to post

And the LORD God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Leaving the Garden of Eden weeping, but sent forth to till the ground, only, eventually, to return with songs of Joy.

Might there be a structural relation, a kind of inclusio, marked by 1 Ne 16:11, where “seed of every kind” is mentioned as Nephi’s vision, and several marriages are mentioned in 16:7. I would be more convinced of this if 16:11 were placed after 16:7, but maybe I’m missing reason for putting the beginnings of the Liahona story before this speculated ending part of the 8:1-16:11 inclusio….

Regarding seed, Lehi’s leaving with seeds to plant reminds me of this:

Psalm 126:6 (New International Version)

6 He who goes out weeping, _
carrying seed to sow, _
will return with songs of joy, _
carrying sheaves with him.

or in King James:

6 He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.

It could be that 8:1 is put there with this concept in mind.

NCNTom, thanks for referring to Skousen’s project. For those wondering how justifiable this claim is, here’s the paragraph from Skousen’s analysis: “[Unidentified] Scribe 2′s initial s in the original manuscript looks like an undotted i, so that sword looks like it begins with a four-stroke w (rather than the expected three-stroke w). Yet nearby examples of s-words clearly show that we have sword in the original manuscript and not word. (See, for instance, saw and seed on line 38 of page 19 in O [the original manuscript], five lines below sword.) When Oliver Cowdery copied from O into P [the printer's manuscript], he misread the strange looking sw as simply a w, thus leading to the current reading [which has appeared in every published edition of the Book of Mormon], word.” (Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, 1:257)

He goes on to point out that while “the word of justice” never appears in the Book of Mormon (except in this text in the current edition), “the sword of justice” appears another six times (Alma 26:19; 60:29; Helaman 13:5; 3 Nephi 20:20; 29:4; and Ether 8:23). Good evidence, it seems to me: it should read sword.

Why does this chapter start with the comment about gathering seeds?

Here are a few of my initial thoughts:

1) Lehi has just sent his sons back to Jerusalem for wives so he can have eternal seed. Chapter 7 ends with the sacrifice of thanksgiving. Lehi’s eternal posterity is on the line. Perhaps this concern about his seed is what sparks this whole vision, where he sees that some of his seed may not make it. Nephi’s vision expands even more on the future of his seed.

2) This vision can be taken as sharing symbolism with the parable of the sower–with the responses of various participants in this vision being similar to what happens to various seeds. So gathering and sowing seeds may be an important theme here that we don’t always make. Lehi himself sees the world like a vast field in this vision. And the footnote in verse 9 shows that someone has already been down this path before…

3) We don’t hear about gathering seeds again until 1 Nephi 16–right after they find the liahona. So you’ve got this comment about gathering seeds serving as a marker somehow (it doesn’t seem to fit at first glance, right?). The comment about seeds bookmarks both ends of this extended passage where Lehi has a dream, Nephi shares the dream, Nephi and his brothers discuss the dream, and God gives the family a guide.

4) We refer to this vision as the vision of the tree of life. Is there a greater connection between seeds and trees here that we’re missing? What of those who “partake of the tree”–do they not become Christ’s seed?

What else is going on here? At the very least, I think that 1 Nephi 8:1 is not just a misplaced comment, but a marker of something far more significant. Something that ties themes of gathering, eternal posterity, the tree of life, and everything else.

OK, here’s where Joe can step in with some brilliant commentary about the nature of covenants, temples, The Vision, etc!

Great thoughts, all. Cheryl, I esp. appreciate your thoughts on female imagery. I’ve often wondered whether feminine symbols are drawing on cultural norms to teach about eternal things and that they should not therefore be used to reinforce cultural norms, or whether such symbols are in fact teaching us something more transcendent about gender and can therefore be used as a guide for cultural norms (I’m partly wondering this because John Milbank seems—emphasis b/c I’m not very confident that this is a fair reading of him, I simply haven’t read enough of his work on this to know—that he and others in the radical orthodoxy movement are effectively arguing for the latter…).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=A&artid=1942

here is a picture (showing Asherah with a trunk bottom and a nursing top)

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/asherah.html

Here is something interesting:

http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/asherah.htm

Another picture is here: http://jblstatue.com/pages/asherah.html

An interesting thing to think about is Joseph Smith seeing his vision in the sacred GROVE – also a symbol of Asherah.

And following on Nathan’s comments, I’m thinking as I’m preparing my notes that I’d like to ask my class, and myself, to read the vision as if we/I am Lehi or Nephi. That is, let the “I/you” replace the vision narrator. I’d like to throw out all definitions of the symbols, and just let the symbols be, the visuals unfolding before us as the “I/you” makes our way through the vision. What does the vision mean in the personal sense? If you/I were having this vision today, would the symbols mean something in your/my life today? Could the vision be a means or vehicle of personal revelation?

After reading comments here at FUTW, and doing study to prepare for Sunday, I am inclined to think that naming the symbols separates them from us, makes them less useful, even less than useful. That is, it will be very difficult to understand the symbols as Lehi/Nehi understood them in their Near Eastern 600 B.C. context. So naming them, defining them, having the symbols explained to us, puts us in the position of Laman and Lemuel, like Ben says. This is not a math problem or a dictionary, but a living vision. We want to be a Lehi or a Nephi. I think we want to desire the vision for ourselves.

What do you think of asking the class, for maybe 30 minutes of the class time, to “live” the vision?

First, a bishop of mine (in PEC or something akin to that) talked about members of our ward who needed to repent and who could probably be described as being in the large and spacious building. He talked to us about how we need to be supportive of those trying to make it back to the path because of the journey they had to make. The person in the large and spacious building needed to leave the building and be able to cross the river of filthiness, or they neeeded to cross through hell, to even make it back to the path and the rod. It set me off on thinking of various journeys through the vision that people could potentially make.

Second, do people tend to think of the journey along the path to the tree as a chronological representation of their life? If so, at what point do we partake of the fruit of the tree (and what happens after that)? Alternatively, can we simultaneously be everywhere in the vision. Should we consider how we are constantly partaking of the tree, but constantly holding fast to the iron rod in the mist of darkness; constantly staying on the path, but simultaneously considering how we feel about being in the great and spacious building? It might be tempting to take the first approach and feel that I’m safely on the path clinging to the rod, unwilling to consider that I’m being overwhelmed by pride and never truly coming to know my savior.

In reference to your comments on the Neumann Institute a clarification is in order. The lesson materials posted on that site are prepared directly from the Gospel Doctrine manual. They are not original lesson plans, but adhere strictly to the plans provided by the Church. The approach and 3 “c’s” you reference are directly from the Gospel Doctrine manual.

Also, your note on 1 Ne 12:18 reminded me of this very interesting post on Lehi’s vision at the New Cool Thang blog (Jacob actually did a series of 3 posts, see here and here for the other 2 posts which also have a fair bit of discussion of the sword, the rod, and the Word (one of the comments links to this article by John Tvedtnes, “Rod and Sword as the Word of God,” JBMS v. 5 no. 2).

The purpose of the lesson (as given in the manual) is:

To help class members understand the symbols in the vision of the tree of life and the application of these symbols in their lives.

The point of the text itself (at least as far as I read it) seems to go in a different direction. Lehi has this vision in which he sees a Tree of Life, a path to it, a wilderness, and so on. He shares this vision with his family. And then his family provides us with two rather different responses. Nephi writes (about himself):

“And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the awords of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a bvision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God—and the Son of God was the cMessiah who should come—I, Nephi, was ddesirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the eHoly Ghost, which is the fgift of God unto gall those who diligently seek him, as well in times of hold as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.”

Then we have Nephi’s brothers, Laman and Lemuel, of whom we read:

“And it came to pass that I beheld my brethren, and they were disputing one with another concerning the things which my father had spoken unto them. For he truly spake many great things unto them, which were hard to be understood, save a man should inquire of the Lord; and they being hard in their hearts, therefore they did not look unto the Lord as they ought. … I spake unto my brethren, desiring to know of them the cause of their disputations. And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive-tree, and also concerning the Gentiles. And I said unto them: Have ye ainquired of the Lord? And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us. Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts? Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.”

Nephi wasn’t challenging Lehi, or Lehi’s prophetic calling when he went to the Lord to see the vision which Lehi had described. Revelation is experiential, and Nephi felt the need to experience it – free from the interpretation of his father. It is especially interesting to me to see that because it was experienced, that Nephi’s vision was both the same as his father’s, and different. The same because he saw what his father saw; different because he saw it through different eyes. As Nephi tells us later with regards to the river of water flowing along side the iron rod:

“And they [his brothers] said unto me: What meaneth the ariver of water which our father saw? And I said unto them that the awater which my father saw was bfilthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water.”

Soren Kierkegaard gave us the parable of the King’s Decree. He asks us to imagine a country in which a royal decree goes out. Instead of complying with the with the new command, however, the subjects of the kingdom instead begin to interpret it. Every day, new interpretations are provided – and soon, no one can keep track of the various offerings. Kierkegaard tells us everything is interpretation – but no one reads the royal ordinance in such a way that he acts accordingly.

Our experience of revelation, I have learned, tends to both confirm and alter our understanding of what is given to us. When we speak to God and God reveals to us the things which we desire to know, it becomes personal and significant, and there is no debate over interpretation. And this empowers us to act accordingly. And so it is with Lehi’s vision of the Tree of Life. The lesson manual spends a great deal of time explaing to us (or encouraging us to explain to one another) the symbolism associated with this vision. But this isn’t the lesson that Nephi is trying to teach us. After all, in having the symbolism explained to us, we aren’t experiencing the revelation. We are merely filtering it. The real lesson of the vision of the Tree of Life is that we should go to God and ask to experience the revelation. Otherwise, as we sit in the Gospel Doctrine class, we are no different from Laman and Lemuel, having the vision explained to us – and not experienced. Not even the explanations of inspired men – prophets of God – can replace this experience. And should we ask and receive, we shouldn’t expect that our experience will be the same. God will speak to us as we need. As Nephi later comments:

“For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding”

Only in experiencing revelation are we really empowered to act accordingly, instead of being lost in an endless stream of interpretation.

Now a couple of comments on the interpretation itself. There is, I think, a distinct connection being drawn here that Nephi is using to connect this vision to the creation narrative in Genesis 1:1-3. Among other things is the cherubim and a flaming sword – which turns every way to keep the way of the tree of life. So Nephi in Chapter 15 talks about the “justice of God did also divide the wicked from the righteous; and the brightness thereof was like unto the brightness of a flaming fire, which ascendeth up unto God forever and ever, and hath no end.” Also, there is an error in which the original manuscript in 12:18 read “And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God …” which originally read: “And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God …” which again takes us back to that imagery of Genesis 3.

Finally, it has been speculated on that the imagery of the tree struck a chord with Nephi and Lehi who were probably familiar with the notion of the Asherah found in Palestine during the time they were there.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

By the way, these ideas, esp. the way you’ve articulated them, seem very related to what interests me in Ricoeur (here and here are my previous posts on Ricoeur) and other (mostly Continental) philosophers who think about how and what it means to read and study scripture, how we bring the past into the present by means of our imagination, and this engagement changes us. And I think this is also at the heart of what Joe kept arguing about way back when in terms of what he doesn’t like about simply saying we should apply the scriptures to ourselves; rather, it is hearing the call of scripture that allows us to enter into a different life, a life that is somehow of an eternal nature—not so much that such a life merely lasts forever, but that it is qualitatively eternal, perhaps in that we are eternally bound by what we say, like the way the sealing power of the priesthood works…?

Ok, Robert, I was going to try to comment on “eternal return,” but I’m sure I just don’t grasp the idea. But something about Eliade’s idea about “becoming contemporary with the events described in one’s myths” seems interesting to me. I doubt this is Eliade’s argument, but could we read “one eternal round” to mean that God’s course (or purpose) is to make us contemporary with Him—not in the sense that he currently exists and I currently exist and therefore we exist at the same time (i.e., we are “contemporaries”), but rather in the sense that he currently exists outside of the “here-and-now” life that I lead and that I can someday join him in his eternal life and thereby truly be his “contemporary” ??

I thought I’d also mention that the “one eternal round” verses that show up several times in the LDS canon have been popular over the years with the folks who go for the multiple mortal probations notion of the eternities.

Thanks,

Jim

In our day, when historical pressure no longer allows any escape, how can man tolerate the catastrophes and horrors of history—from collective deportations and massacres to atomic bombings—if beyond them he can glimpse no sign, no transhistorical meaning; if they are only the blind play of economic, social, or political forces, or, even worse, only the result of the ‘liberties’ that a minority takes and exercises directly on the stage of universal history?

We know how, in the past, humanity has been able to endure the sufferings we have enumerated: they were regarded as a punishment inflicted by God, the syndrome of the decline of the ‘age,’ and so on. And it was possible to accept them precisely because they had a metahistorical meaning [...] Every war rehearsed the struggle between good and evil, every fresh social injustice was identified with the sufferings of the Saviour (or, for example, in the pre-Christian world, with the passion of a divine messenger or vegetation god), each new massacre repeated the glorious end of the martyrs. [...] By virtue of this view, tens of millions of men were able, for century after century, to endure great historical pressures without despairing, without committing suicide or falling into that spiritual aridity that always brings with it a relativistic or nihilistic view of history. [The Myth of Eternal Return, pp. 151-52]

Joe, I’m guessing you would end up finding a lot of support and insight for a typological hermeneutic/theology in passage (1 Ne 10:17ff)….

Can I recommend Dan Peterson’s article on 1 Nephi 8 as well? http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=223

Also, I think the simplest, most straightforward interpretation of 1 Nephi 8 has to be in terms of the family’s immediate situation: the tree and the river are where they are staying in the desert, the large and spacious building is Jerusalem or even the temple (as Jeremiah would have interpreted it), etc.

I entirely agree that 1 Nephi 10:17-22 is entirely neglected. In a sense, I think those verses are one of the three or four most important parts of Nephi’s entire two-volume text. Far more attention needs to be given to them.